“While we are obviously pleased to see the commitment to expanding off-road opportunities throughout the city, Forest Park remains a signature community resource that really deserves better single-track and other off-road experiences. It’s disappointing to see such a hopeful process end this way – at least for now – and stands in contrast to exciting developments in other bike-friendly communities such as Boulder, Colo., Philadelphia, Pa., and Chattanooga, Tenn., where the mountain bike community is working with park agencies to develop first-class riding opportunities in the city.”

Clarke is referring to how several major U.S. cities have figured out how to allow off-road cycling in urban parks. A New York Times article in 2007 reported that:

“About 15 major metropolitan areas have legitimized mountain biking in urban parks…including Pittsburgh, Austin, Louisville, Tucson, Salt Lake City, suburban Los Angeles; and Vancouver, British Columbia…The increasing desire to suit up, clip in and ride a mountain bike from home to nearby trails is prompting recreation managers to reassess a sport long outlawed in city parks.”

The League is the organization that doled out Portland’s coveted “Platinum” bike-friendly city status. Back in 2006, the League announced that urban singletrack riding opportunities are an important criteria to achieving and maintaining that status.

“… We’re a ‘Platinum’ city, but the one area where we have a weakness is off-road cycling opportunities. It’s the area we have been challenged as a city to put more time and resources into developing our system; and it’s an area where the mayor has asked the council to be creative. I start with the premise that we’re doing really well as a bicycle town but this is an area where we need to do better.”

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan

“And earlier this month, the Parks Bureau released results from the first of three user surveys. Among its findings: less than 8 percent of visitors to Forest Park ride a bicycle, though there seems to be wide interest in expanded cycling opportunities there.”

This study was flawed from the beginning. Who rides Forest Park on a rainy WEEKEND in May? If it’s the weekend, I am going anywhere BUT Forest Park, and certainly not if it is raining. Maybe those who WERE using the park that day for hiking/running were doing more damage than anyone because of the wet weather? I think it shows the bicyclists were doing the RIGHT thing by not riding in the park when it is muddy. THAT is why the 8% number is low.

And Congrats to Mr. Fish and Zari Santner: You just cost Portland the Platinum Status they achieved from the League of American Bicyclists! Why?

From Bike Portland, April 28th, 2008:

League of American Bicyclists’ Andy Clarke put it this way,

“Portland has had the courage to lead, to innovate, and to pursue a vision of their community that emphasizes choice, equity, and quality of life. Platinum status isn’t forever. We recognize that compared to other world-class cities for cycling, Portland still has a long way to go.”

And with that, the League offered these recommendations for Portland to maintain its coveted Platinum ranking:

•Ensure better access to city parks and recreation areas for off-road riding;

Yep, the FIRST thing he mentioned off-road riding.

Even within the Platinum application process, Portland tried to take credit for LL Stub Stewart State Park as a ‘local riding area’. IT’S A 45 MINUTE DRIVE.

George (#4) – Forest Park is not Wilderness, it’s 2nd growth forest which was logged within the last 70 years. There is little significant difference between Forest Park and other wooded open spaces on and around the Tualatin Mountains. (what many Portlanders call the “Western Hills”)

I don’t own a MTB anymore so I suppose this doesn’t directly affect me, but it is still bothersome. Back when the platinum status was awarded I thought it was a little odd being that city seems so far behind in the MTB arena. I didn’t realize that in fact it was an area of improvement needed to keep the platinum status. I guess we really don’t deserve it after all?

Wow, there’s only a 1/3 of a mile? As I don’t mountain bike I had no idea. That does seem beyond ridiculous for a so called bike town. Guess that explains why I see hundreds of road bikes going to Germantown but only a handful of mountain bikes.

Forest Park may not be a wilderness area, but it is a unique wildlife corridor. “There are over 112 species of birds and mammals. This assemblage of species … is very similar to that noted by William Clark in 1806.” More info at:http://forestparkconservancy.org/forest-park/portland-landscape.html
I care more about what’s good for the park, not what’s good for bicycling in it.

Much of Forest Park is mostly an infestation of english ivy that is killing its trees, damaging the natural undergrowth that protects the hills from landslides, and– through birds carrying seed– spreading to other forests. What Forest Park should be is a combined day time recreation area and night time transit corridor for critters moving between Smith-Bybee and West Hayden Island and the west slope. Think deer, raccoon, coyote, and others large and small. But the ivy and other invasive species are screwing up this night time use by choking out greenery that provide cover and forage. There is a reason why parts of Forest Park are called “ivy deserts”: nothing else lives there.

There is certainly more room for trails, including bike paths, but until the invasives are under better control, it is understandable that further trail development of any kind should be postponed. Data that should have been collected 20 years ago is needed, and planning for invasive control that should have been done 10 years ago has to be done.

From a long term management point of view, one very good approach would be to close down ALL recreational use until there is a planned approach to the invasives that includes appropriate monitoring of progress and mechanisms to keep it on track. But closing existing recreational use is not politically possible.

There are opportunities to volunteer to pull ivy from time to time, which is the only good way to control the stuff. If biking groups could demonstrate that they are contributing to the park’s health, that would certainly magnify their political power.

The only thing banned is building new trails. What was taken off the table previously is trail sharing. Sure I get it: to build more trails there needs to be studies and money. To open existing trails (not all of them) to mountain bike access, on a limited basis is a discretionary act. That this did not happen is simply a matter of the dominant group unwilling to share.

The fact of the matter is that mountain bikes are legitimate park users and have a precedent for riding singletrack (Firelane 5). Trail sharing on multi-use paths is successful in many communities; it is proven. Say the words out loud: “We just don’t want to share.” Quit making excuses and perpetrating stereotypes and being sacrosanct. Say the words so I know what you are and I will ride away from YOUR park.

Disappointing to say the least. I’ll continue taking Portland Parks and Preservation department’s message to heart, that people who ride mountain bikes can leave town to enjoy their sport. I’ve heard that several times from them. So, I’ll take their message to heart and continue to leave town and let another jurisdiction get my gas tax money because I’m driving on roads somewhere else, those roads might as well benefit from my gas tax dollars. I’ll also put in my volunteer time on trails where I am welcomed. That time benefits not only mountain bikers, but it benefits hikers, hunters and sometimes even horseback riders who share the trails.

Maybe the selfish cyclists who would rather ride and cause erosion than not ride and preserve the park could possible think, THINK, for one dang second about the ways in which water and gravity effect naked soil, and then maybe, possibly consider why they are not being allowed more damaging trails, then perhaps this silly debate will come to a logical conclusion.

George, I don’t think Buzzard Ed would agree with you. And since you seem to advocate civil disobedience. vis a vis Monkey-wrenching, I am sure you are sympathetic with those calling for poaching or a critical mass demonstration.

Selfish cyclists? We only hoped to gain access to a small portion of the many miles of trails. Who is being selfish? The hiker groups and homeowners ringing the park are the ones being selfish.

I thought about what you wrote and understand that water and gravity cause erosion–not bicycles.

Seems to me Forest Park is a natural area and the collective vision and wisdom of Portland’s 500,000 plus citizens is to keep it that way. Walking and running are natural. High speed, mechanically driven machines are not.

I’m surprised that someone with the screen name George Hayduke would be opposed to human powered transportation or recreation, particularly since Forest Park is not by any definition of the word, wilderness

@#37 I agree it is natural to run, but shoes are not natural, so I think it is fine to hike/run there but people need to check their nikes at the gate. Maybe we can build some sort of a rack and people can stick a ulock through their laces.

Forest Park is not a wilderness, but it’s a city park and I pay taxes and I want trails. Since I can’t get that I’m taking my dollars, my votes and my bikes somewhere where mountain bikers aren’t discriminated against because it’s a decisive priority in my life. This council’s decision is basically just the door hitting my *** on the way out.

I’ll grant that although FP isn’t wilderness it is a unique wildlife corridor, a small finger of the Coast Range ecosystem extending 100 miles or so inland. It is worthy of protection. What hasn’t been shown is that increased bicycle access will threaten it in any way.

1. Even if it were shown (and it has not been) that cycling is worse than hiking in terms of wildlife impact, there are far worse impacts that need to be addressed first: off leash dogs, invasive plant species and homeless encampments are causing far more harm, and I don’t see much effort directed to deal with those.

2. The relatively small mileage of new trail would be in areas of the park already rated as “heavily impacted” — NOT in semi-pristine areas where there might actually be significant wildlife impacts.

3. The other big anti-bike argument being advanced is from those who claim they want to take their little kids hiking on bike-free trails (and, frankly, that often includes ME). But it’s a BS argument because only a couple of trails have been proposed for trail sharing, and even the most generous proposal would leave more than sixty miles of bike-free trail in FP.

And that last point leads me to this: This is not an environmental issue, folks. It’s a user conflict. For hiking clubs who are used to facing down developers, those are usually one and the same. But their history has left the hiking groups apparently unable to tell the difference between environmental advocacy and user advocacy.

Likening bicycles to clearcuts and developers? You guys are just embarrassing the legitimate environmental movement now.